Tom Wolfe to speak at noon
By RIVIAN TAYLOR Editor
Tom Wolfe, noted New Journalist and author, will kick off “Cul-tureprobe,” this year’s Festival of the Arts, with a free lecture at noon today in Bovard Auditorium.
Since “Cultureprobe” will be examining mass culture, or POP culture — the culture of youth — Wolfe is indeed a likely person to begin the festival.
Wolfe, along with Marshall McLuhan (who will speak Friday night), is generally credited with discovering and chronicling the POP phenomenon.
“He understands the human animal like no sociologist around. He tweaks his reader’s every buried thought and prejudice. He sees through everything,” the New York Times commented on his latest book, “Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers.”
His published books now number four. Three are collections,
For more information on this week's “Cultureprobesee today's Campus supplement, which is devoted to coverage of the Festival of the Arts. "Cultureprobe" will last through Friday.
“The Kandy-Kolored Tangerine-Flake Streamline Baby.” The fourth is the highly interesting “Electric Kook-Aid Acid Test,” an account of life with Ken Kesey and his commune of Merry Pranksters. Wolfe’s range has been great: from New York’s Beautiful People to San Francisco ghettos to California surfers to the custom car world to the hippie drug culture.
Though he now writes principally for magazines, Wolfe reported for the Washington Post and then for the New York Herald Tribune in the early 1960s. But his work nowadays hardly fits the traditional journalistic forms. Instead, his articles are full of exclamation points, dots, dashes, italics, and occasionally punctuation that never existed before :::::: and of gassy colors, hip talk, nonsense words and onomatopoeia.
This style of colors, weird punctuation and hip talk has become the earmark of the controversial New Journalism. As the spokesman and foremost practitioner of the New Journalism, Wolfe is held in both the highest and lowest esteem.
The new breed of journalists worship Wolfe: “Tom Wolfe is to contemporary American journalism what the early Salinger was to our fiction—delicious, unexpected, fascinating and super contemporary,” one writer said.
However, the traditionalists charge that Wolfe’s influence is ruining the profession. They say that as good as Wolfe is, he has probably ruined a generation of writers by making them believe that journalism is easy if editors would loosen the reins a bit.
But regardless of the arguments over the merits of New Journalism, Wolfe’s reporting is widely praised. Even the critics of New Journalism acknowledge his skill in chronicling society. More important than his unusual style mannerisms, is his technique of reporting—saturation reporting.
Wolfe explained saturation reporting in a 1970 issue of a journalism trade magazine:
“For years the basic reporting technique has been the interview. You have a subject to write about it, you write down their answers and then you recount what they said.
“To pull it (saturation reporting) off you casually have to stay with the people you are writing about for long stretches. You may have to stay with them days, weeks, even months—long enough so that you are actually there when revealing scenes take place in their lives. You have to constantly be on the alert for chance remarkks, odd details, quirks, curios, anything that may serve to bring a scene alive when you’re writing.”
University of Southern California
DAILY W TROJAN
VOL. LXIV NO. 73 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1972
Law protest continues
By MIKE REVZIN Staff Writer
A communitywide meeting for Chicanos has been scheduled for the Law Center on March 6 by Chicanos who feel that law schools and the legal profession have not been serving the interests of their community.
About 20 Chicano law students from USC, UCLA and Loyola, as well as Chicano lawyers and members of MECHA from USC and UCLA met at the Law Center Saturday.
They reasserted their dedication in getting the Law Center faculty to accept the Chicano Law Students’ 10-point plan, which they feel the faculty rejected Thursday.
But Scott Bice, associate dean of the Law Center, said that it
is inaccurate to say that the faculty rejected the 10-point plan at the faculty meeting Thursday.
The faculty, he said, voted on a plan for admissions procedure recommended by the Selection of Students Committee. Points of the Chicanos’s plan that disagreed with this were, in effect, rejected. But other points, not concerning admission, have either been considered in the past, or are yet to be considered, he said.
A main purpose of the Chicanos’ 10-point plan is to turn out more lawyers who will serve the Mexican^kmerican community. The plan includes admission of 30 Chicanos for the coming academic year, hiring a Chicano professor for the com-
ing year, and autonomous selection of incoming Chicano law students by the Chicano Law Students.
At present, three minority students and one faculty member interview minority applicants to the school. Their evaluation can add as many as 20 additional points to the applicants’ prediction index—a combination of his grade point average and results from the Law School Aptitude Test.
The Chicano Law Students interview the applicants to find out how much they have contributed to the Chicano community and try to determine if they are likely to contribute after graduation.	*
Dave Gomez, a law student,
(Coninued on page 2)
ASSC VP absent from office
By GUNTHER MERLI Staff Writer
Joel Rosenzweig, ASSC vice-president for programs, has been absent from his office for the past several months because of his involvement as director of The Who’s “Tommy,” which starts at the Aquarius Theater today.
Apparently, all this activity has left him no time for the ASSC. Rosenzweig’s ASSC Executive Council attendance record has been spotty since he began working on “Tommy” several months ago. He has rarely been in his office.
Rosenzweig could not be reached Friday because he was at a rehearsal at the Aquarius, but he said two weeks ago that he would have no comment on the situation until Wednesday, the day after “Tommy” opens. He said his duties are being handled by his proxy, Scott King. From what ASSC leaders say,
however, this doesn’t seem to be the case.
Kent Clemence, ASSC president, said he knows that Rosenzweig has not been doing his job, but doesn’t want to start a fight by moving to have him recalled. There has been talk of bringing charges of nonfeasance to the Student Court.
Jim Gross, entertainment-coordinator, said of the Rosenzweig’s work, “It’s just not getting done.”
Apparently, most of the committees under Rosenzweig’s
administrative authority have been able to function without him. These committees such as the ASSC charter flight program under the SCaffold Committee, are under their own chairmen. The ASSC Programs Council has not met in several months, but it has been described as a paper tiger and is apparently not missed.
Lee Blackman, vice-president for academic affairs, believes Rosenzweig will return after he gets “Tommy” started. “I have confidence in him,” he said.
Mistake on caption corrected
On Friday the Daily Trojan printed a picture relating to the Chicano students controversy at the Law Center.
A line was inadvertently edited from the caption of that picture. The missing line would have said that Leonard Ratner, professor of law, asked the Chicano students to end their meeting because he was scheduled to teach a class in the room where the mfeeting was being held. Ratner was patient and quiet in his requests for the meeting to end.
Academic tenure: how it is granted, lost
By PETER WONG News Editor
(This is the second in a series on academic tenure—the Editor.)
The question of tenure has always been important at college campuses, for once a faculty member is granted tenure, he can be dismissed only for specified causes and under strict procedures.
In effect, those who have tenure may hold their positions until retirement.
Therefore, when a tenured faculty member is dismissed from any campus, for whatever reason, the event and its implications are discussed throughout the academic community.
Such has been the result in the case of H. Bruce Franklin, an associate professor of English at Stanford University who was fired by that university’s board of trustees Jan. 22 for inciting violence on the campus.
Those who defend the university’s decision say there must be a distinction made between free speech and efforts to disrupt the university by violence.
Those who disagree with the decision believe that Franklin’s dismissal will intimidate legitimate protest and force conformity to the majority viewpoint.
The procedures for dismissal of a tenued faculty member at this university have not been formally exercised in at least 10 years. However, they are there, ready for any situation. (It should be remembered that Franklin is the first tenured faculty member to be dismissed in the 81-year history of Stanford University.)
But the procedures for the granting of tenure to faculty members are used much more frequently, and these merit at least a brief examination.
The lowest ranking member of the full-time faculty is the instructor, who is appointed annually, but no more than three times. The instructor may be promoted to assistant professor
during the three years; if he is not promoted, he is released from the university.
Next in rank is the assistant professor, who is appointed annually from four to seven times, depending upon service at other campuses. For those with no full-time experience elsewhere, the maximum probationary period is seven years; for those with one to two years of full-time experience elsewhere, the maximum prob-
ationary period is five to six years.
In the probationary period, an assistant professor must prove hhimself worthy of promotion—and tenure—or he will not continue on the university faculty.
While neither teaching nor research get primary emphasis in such an evaluation, “ideally and generally, faculty members are expected to contribute to both of these areas,” the 1970-71 Faculty Handbook notes. “However, outstanding performance in one can constitute an appropriate basis for academic advancement.”
An assistant professor may be promoted upon the recommendation of his department and dean, with the advice of a committee of faculty colleagues. Either the provost, academic vice-president or vice-president for academic planning and research, and the president must approve the recommendation. The president has the final say, which is granted to him by the Board of Trustees.
If the assistant profesor is promoted to associate professor, he is also granted tenure.
Both associate professors and professors have tenure, in keeping with nationally accepted
professional practice. Promotions from associate professor to professor follow the same route as that of assistant to associate professo—but without the pressures of granting tenure.
The dismissal procedures for tenured faculty members (and nontenured faculty members whose appointments have not yet expired) are uniform. But it is easier for the university to dismiss a nontenured faculty
member, because the tenured one may be dismissed only on proof of one or more of the following: neglect of duty; dishonesty; moral turpitude; misconduct that causes grave injury or brings extreme discredit to the university; recent activity knowingly and willfully directed toward the violent overthrow of either the government of the United States or any of its constituent parts.
The university’s Faculty Tenure and Privileges Committee would play an important role
if a case similar to the Franklin case at Stanford University were to take place on this campus.
The committee is in the general committee structure under Milton Kloetzel, academic vice-president, but it is unlike most committees. There are no student members, and appointments are quite an elaborate process.
Orrin Evans, professor of law and dean emeritus of the Law Center, outlined the appointment procedures:
•	The executive committee of the University Senate, the representative body of the faculty, nominates 12 members of the full-time faculty, all of whom have tenure.
•	From the list of nominees, the president of the university appoints eight who constitute the committee.
•	The committee then nominates three members to be chairman, who is appointed by the president.
Evans said it is customary for several members of the committee to be from the Law Center faculty, to provide guidance if a hearing should be necessary; for several members to be elected members of the University Senate; for the chairman to be
(Continued on page 6)